2 Durango debate
2.1 Karen Spencer
Dental decay does NOT increase with cessation. That’s a scare tactic.
2000 in NC, after 11 months only one noticeable difference, a significant drop in fluorosis among preschoolers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10728978?dopt=Abstract
2001 in Canada, caries continued to drop 3 years later (6,000 kids): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153562
1998 in Finland, fluoride treatments had “decreased sharply” – and still no increase in caries after 3 yrs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9758426
However, there was a fraudulant study in Calgary that is currently used by fluoridationists.
Choose the answer for each problem
a) cherry picked data
b) scientific fraud
c) flawed study design
d) author bias and scientific advocacy
e) all of the above
Problem 1: Study compares data from 2004/05 to 2013/14 to claim that dental decay increased after fluoridation ended, although fluoridation ended in 2011 and a comparison of data from 2004/05 to 2009/10, the year before fluoridation ended, shows that most of the increased decay was before fluoridation ended.
Problem 2: The number of primary teeth examined in the 2004/05 sample was quite unequal, 599 for Calgary and 6,445 for Edmonton.
Problem 3: Study omits data that showed a decrease of cavities in permanent teeth for the children in the no-fluoride community and instead mentions “non-significant” trend towards increase in a subset of that data.
Problem 4: Study advocates for an optional medical intervention affecting millions, ignoring many larger studies of longer duration with different conclusions as well as multiple studies proving harm.
Problem 5: Study author was a proponent of fluoridation who fought removal. Study featured in near identical articles in multiple Canadian newspapers the day it was published.
E&O Analysis by Prof Sheldon, Dean of Hull York Medical School and expert in Public Health: http://www.fluoridealert.org/…/sheldon-statement.pdf
FAN Report: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/calgary-fluoride-study/
Press Release Summary: http://www.prnewswire.com/…/calgary-fluoride-study…
Some opposition documents, several with citations:
Oct 2016, Ambassador Andrew Young, Civil Rights leader: http://www.prweb.com/…/2016AndrewJ…/10/prweb13768202.htm
Sept 2016 Comment on disinformation efforts: http://fluoridealert.org/…/upl…/SalemState2016.09.07.pdf
April 2016, Dr. Mark Hyman, medical scholar: http://fluoridealert.org/news/mark_hyman_fluoride/
April 2016, Erin Brockovich et al.: http://fluoridealert.org/wp…/uploads/brockovich-2016.pdf
Feb 2016, Dr. Richard Shames et al.: http://www.ehcd.com/…/2016/02/2016_02_11_ATALtrCWF.pdf
Sept 2015 Lois Gibbs, environmentalist: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/gibbs-2015.pdf
May 2015 Dr. Wm Owens, Black Pastors’ Coalition: http://fluoridealert.org/wp…/uploads/owens-may.2015.pdf
July 2011 LULAC Position Statement: http://lulac.org/…/resolution_Civil_Rights_Violation…/
Jan 2003 IAOMT Position Statement: https://iaomt.org/…/article_IAOMT-Fluoridation-Position…
Here is James Forleo of Clean Water Durango
Industrial fluoride: a toxic cocktail
To the editor,
Many people don’t know the true source of the fluoride that Durango adds to our drinking water. Simply see the City of Durango’s Water Confidence page, www.durangogov.org/DocumentCenter/View/2585. It identifies the source of fluoride as residue from aluminum and fertilizer manufacturing!
Industrial sodium fluoride from China is used for water fluoridation in Durango. See cleanwaterdurango.org for photos and an independent laboratory analysis of sodium fluoride from China. Sodium fluoride from China, used because it is cheaper, is especially suspect, as the standards in China are minimal. Each bag of their industrial waste, which we traced to an aluminum factory in Zhuzhou, China, varies as to its toxic content. An independent laboratory in Colorado re ported that sodium fluoride from China contains significant amounts of lead and trace amounts of aluminum, arsenic, strontium, uranium and tungsten. Chinese sodium fluoride also doubles as a pesticide, as stated by the manufacturer. This is very different from naturally occurring calcium fluoride.
The real problem for residents is the absorption rate of sodium fluoride. Nature regulates the absorption of naturally occurring calcium fluoride to a rate of less than 10 percent. Sodium fluoride, on the other hand, is a salt and is absorbed at a rate of 95-100 percent, bringing with it a toxic cocktail of industrial waste. I know it is hard to believe that industry would do this to our population, but it has ever since fluoridation began.
Dr. Mathew Clark in his letter to the editor on 2/23/17 called sodium fluoride naturally occurring. This is totally misinformed. And even though the City denies that we use aluminum waste products in our water, that is the truth, and it’s classically what America has been using for water fluoridation since 1945.
We have the idea that fluoride is healthy. It may possibly help your teeth, although I would recommend everyone read the warning label on their tube of fluoridated toothpaste. Fluoridation is not about teeth anymore. It’s about having a choice, which Durango residents do not have. Above all we need to understand fluoride’s questionable source and the devastating effects it has on your family’s health.
We also can’t seem to let go of the idea that fluoridation has been called one of the top 10 health achievements of the 20th Century. People fail to mention that the World Health Organization ranks the health of the U.S. population 37th in the world, the worst of all industrialized nations, even though we spend twice as much as any of its 191 member countries. Water fluoridation is one of the reasons we rank so poorly. Ninety-seven per- cent of the countries ranked ahead of us do not fluoridate. Maybe we shouldn’t brag about a health achievement in a country with such a poor health record.
Many dentists and health professionals think fluoride is natural because it comes from phosphate rock. That is another half truth. The other part of the story is that the most toxic acid known to man, sulfuric acid, is added to phosphate rock to make two very toxic fluoride gasses that are captured and filtered until the desired percentage of fluoride is obtained. These gasses used to be released into the atmosphere, but cattle were killed within a 1-mile radius of the factories in Florida and all vegetation died within 3 miles. Industry was forced to add scrubbers. Manufacturers then sell this toxic fluoride waste to municipalities to re- lease into their drinking water. There is nothing natural about industrial fluoride!
Science demands a spirit of inquiry to challenge long-standing ideas. Durango residents should find out the truth about water fluoridation and why 219 cities across America have discontinued it.
Mail-in ballots must be received by April 4. Vote “FOR” the Initiative not to add sodium fluoride to Durango’s water.
– James Forleo, Durango
Durango 2.3 Cheri Jones
Useful argument on dangers of sodium fluoride.
Naturally occurring calcium fluoride (CaF2) is not the same as sodium fluoride (NAF) or fluorosilic acid (H2SiF6). Misleading the public by misrepresenting calcium fluoride and the chemical/toxic waste substance sodium fluoride as being the same and having the same alleged benefit to teeth is ethically irresponsible.
The city website, durangogov.org/fluoride, lists the sodium fluoride documents for the material safety data sheet guidelines and testing results. The Univar safety data sheet states warnings such as, “danger, toxic if swallowed, contact poison control if ingested. Can cause irritation to skin, mucous membranes, risk of nervous problems, burns and risk of convulsions. Heating can cause release of hazardous gas.”
The Solvay product safety summary document reveals exposure to high concentrations or long-term exposure to low concentrations of sodium fluoride can cause fluoride poisoning with stomach pain, weakness, convulsions, collapse and death. It immediately contradicts this to state: “The above side effects do not occur with the concentration of sodium fluoride typically used in water for preventing cavities in teeth.”
One could conclude that the lower concentrations of sodium fluoride that can cause harm could equate to the lower concentrations added to our water, and the 60 years of water fluoridation could equate to the long-term exposure to lower concentrations that can cause harm.
What precise lower concentrations cause harm? How many days, weeks or years determine long-term exposure? The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2014, article ID 293019 states, “The inability to control individual dose renders the notion of an optimum concentration obsolete.”
Because sodium fluoride is used in food preservatives, insecticides, pesticides and water fluoridation, one cannot control the actual concentration of fluoride a person is ingesting and can exceed the recommended lower concentrations considered safe.
No amount of an accumulative toxic poison is safe or good for our teeth. In 2014, The Lancet, the world’s oldest medical journal, classified fluoride as a neurotoxim. A lie told long enough does not make it truth. Vote for fluoridation of our water to end on April 4.
2.4 Dennis O#Brien, DC
Another contributor from a practising doctor – note his comment os on ‘thyroid problems’, presumably hypothyroidism. .
I am writing to my friends, neighbors and fellow residents in Durango regarding water fluoridation. I am a new doc in town, having moved here from Vancouver, Washington, just across the Columbia River from Portland, Oregon. Portland has voted down water fluoridation for decades, while Vancouver has not.
Over the 23 years that I practiced in Vancouver, about half of my patient load was from Portland and the other half from Vancouver. Of the patients presented with thyroid problems, most of them lived in Vancouver, where people drank fluoridated water.
How can this be? A trip down chemistry lane will help all us water consumers better understand this (by the way, I was a chemistry major). If we remember the periodic table from high school chemistry, all of the known elements are listed in stacks of blocks with corresponding numbers associated with them.
The second to last column from right to left are the halogens, and are grouped here because they have similar properties. From the top down they are: fluorine, chlorine, bromine and iodine. The halogens displace each other from the top down. What this means is that fluorine, chlorine and bromine all displace and compete with iodine for iodine receptors, which creates an iodine deficiency and does not allow the thyroid hormone to become its active form.
A useful lab test to confirm this is the iodine loading test, which will measure the amount of excreted fluorine, chlorine and bromine. Those that are interested can Google “Dr. David Brownstein/Thyroid” to learn more about this testing. If you do, you will find out about the toxic sources of fluoride used for water treatment.
Durango currently gets its fluoride from industrial waste in China. There is also the matter of choice. If after learning about the toxicity of Durango fluoride and how it disrupts our thyroid hormone production you still choose to ingest fluoride, I would ask you to simply buy fluoridated toothpaste and let the rest of us avoid this toxic substance.
Dennis O’Brien, DC
2.5 One comment –
- The EPA rejected the petition – and provided detailed arguments showing the petition misrepresented the science.
- – provoked this interesting response
- Seabreezes1 perrottk 20 days ago
The EPA used a 2006 study from Macek et al. to dismiss several studies concerning fluoridation increasing blood lead in children, but the EPA misrepresented Macek.
Macek et al. found a positive correlation in the blood lead of children living in houses of unknown age or built before 1946 who were drinking water fluoridated with HFSA. One in five American children live in houses built before 1946; 90% of the fluoridation chemicals used for CWF are HFSA. Macek et al. also wrote that “it is possible that larger samples might have identified additional, significant differences.” The study authors, like the EPA, did not directly address findings that fluoride increases the absorption of lead into mammalian tissue independent of blood lead levels, although Macek et al. wrote “our analyses cannot refute a possible link between water fluoridation method and lead uptake in children, particularly among those who live in older dwellings.”
This dissembling is representative of the EPA’s efforts to avoid addressing fluoridation in this and other venues